TAWAS CITY - One Michigan court ordered Christopher Martin's name to appear on November ballots for the 23rd Circuit Court judge.

Earlier this month, the state Supreme Court ordered Martin's name off ballots.

This week, the Tawas City attorney says he'll decide whether to run as a write-in candidate for the Circuit serving Arenac, Iosco, Alcona and Oscoda counties. The race is otherwise uncontested for incumbent Judges William Myles and Ronald Bergeron.

"It's been a tough adventure," Martin said Wednesday of his on-again, off-again ballot status for four months. "But I don't want to say it's over.

"I still feel strongly, of course, that people generally ought to be able to run for office. And people generally should be able to vote for who they want."

Martin's dilemma dates to May, after he'd filed to run for the 23rd Circuit judgeship, precisely following the Michigan Secretary of State guidelines.

Trouble was, state election authorities told him wrong. They mistakenly required he turn in too few voter signatures.

State election officials responded by phoning Martin, apologizing and withdrawing his name from ballots.

Martin, in turn, sued and won an Ingham County Circuit judge's order to get his name returned to state ballots.

Myles and Bergeron responded by appealing to the Michigan Court of Appeals. But the latter affirmed the lower court's order in Martin's favor.

Finally, after an initial rebuff from the Supreme Court, Bergeron appealed once more to the high court. This time, he secured an emergency hearing and a 4-3 ruling against Martin.

Justice Stephen J. Markman, writing for the majority, reasoned that state election law, which includes candidate filing deadlines, takes precedence over erroneous state instructions to candidates.

"Although it is unfortunate that (Martin) received incorrect guidance, such guidance cannot alter the law of this state," Markman wrote.

Central to the justices' Sept. 4 decision was the issue of equity. That is, should the justices do what is fair and just under Martin's particular circumstances? Or should they stick narrowly to the law, as it's written?

On Wednesday, Bergeron said he's pleased that a majority chose a strict interpretation of election law rather than to grant Martin equity.

"I have no problem running and campaigning against a legal opponent," Bergeron said.

"I've had four prior, legally qualified opponents in my campaigns. But we have rules and statutes that spell out what candidates have to do."

In Martin's case, that meant turning in adequate signatures before the April filing deadline, not after, as the lower court allowed Martin in light of his misdirection.

For now, Martin is weighing the unlikely odds of winning a four-county election as a write-in when two incumbent judges' names will appear on ballots for two seats, but his will not.